Page No.# 1/3 GAHC030003612026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Arb.A./12/2026 National Highways and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. (NHIDCL) and Anr. Represented by Managing Director (P), 1st and 2nd floor, Tower A, WTC, Nauroji Nagar, New Delhi - 110029 2: The Manager (P) PMU-Seling NHIDC VERSUS Sh. Rengchhunga and 2 Ors. R/o Khawzawl Vengthar, Khawzawl District, Mizoram 2:The Competent Authority for Land Acquisition 3:Union of Indi Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Shubham Paliwal Advocate for the Respondent : Mr. Joseph Mangsuanhau for R1 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA JUDGMENT / ORDER Date : 27.07.2026 1. Heard Mr. K. Jain, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Joseph Mangsuanhau, learned counsel for the respondent. Mr. Jonathan Lalrintluanga, Page No.# 2/3 learned counsel appears for the respondent no. 2. 2. The appellant has put to challenge the impugned Judgement and Order dated 08/04/2026 passed by the Court of the Additional District Judge, Champhai, Mizoram, in Arbitration Petition No. 2/2025, by which the appellant’s application under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, has been dismissed, on the ground that the application under section 34 of the Act had not been filed within the limitation period of 90 days. 3. The counsel for the appellant submits that the Arbitral Award had been passed by the learned Arbitrator on 17/10/2024 and the same had been received by the appellant on 23/10/2024. The appeal under section 34 of the Act was subsequently filed on 21/01/2025, i.e. within 88 days of receiving the Arbitral Award. He thus submits that in terms Section 34(3) of the Act, the limitation period of 90 days for filing an application under section 34 of the Act has not been crossed. Section 34(3) of the Act provides as follows :- “An application for setting aside may not be made after three months have elapsed from the date on which the party making that application had received the arbitral award or, if a request had been made under section 33, from the date on which that request had been disposed of by the arbitral tribunal. Provided that if the Court is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within the said period of three months it may entertain the application within a further period of thirty days, but not thereafter.” 4. The learned counsel for the appellant has also taken this Court to Annexure-3 of the appeal, which is the Peon Book, showing that Arbitral Award No. NH-06/KZL/38/ARB-24 had been received by the NHIDCL, Tuikhuahtlang on Page No.# 3/3 23/10/2024. The learned counsel for the appellant has also taken this Court to the Corrigendum No.NH-06/KZL/37/Arb-2024 dated 06/12/2024, which shows that Arbitration Case No. NH-06/KZL/38/Arb-2024 is to be read as NH- 06/KZL/37/Arb-2024. 5. On going through the documents in the appeal, it is quite clear that the Arbitral Award executed on 17/10/2024 had been received by the appellant on 23/10/2024. As the section 34 application had been filed on 21/01/2025, the same had been filed within 90 days from the date of receipt of the Award by the appellant. As such, it is quite apparent that the application under section 34 of the Act had been made within the prescribed limitation period, inasmuch as, the limitation period started from 23/10/2024, i.e. the date the appellant received the Award. 6. In view of the above reasons, the impugned judgement and order dated 08/04/2026 passed by the Court of the Additional District Judge, Champhai, Mizoram, in Arbitration Petition No. 2/2025, being unsustainable, is set aside. The Court shall accordingly consider the application made by the appellant herein under section 34 of the Act on merits. 7. The appeal is accordingly allowed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant